Colarossi v. University of Rochester

New York Court of Appeals

Colarossi v. University of Rochester

812 N.E.2d 1250, 2 N.Y.3d 773, 780 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2 N.Y. 773, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 983

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 6, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 812 N.E.2d 1250 (Colarossi v. University of Rochester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Colarossi v. University of Rochester, 812 N.E.2d 1250, 2 N.Y.3d 773, 780 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2 N.Y. 773, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 983 (N.Y. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, an undergraduate student, was shot without provocation by a nonstudent while standing outside a fraternity house located in a residential area of defendant’s campus known as the “fraternity quad.” Plaintiff alleged that inadequate security and lighting were a proximate cause of his injuries. Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and by a divided Court the Appellate Division reversed and granted defendant summary judgment.

In opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, plaintiff presented no evidence other than “[m]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations” that the alleged insufficient security and lighting in the fraternity quad were a proximate cause of the shooting (Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 87 NY2d 887, 888 [1995] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), or that the criminal attack was foreseeable or preventable in the normal course of events (see Maheshwari v City of New York, 2 NY3d 288, 294-295 [decided today]). Accordingly, the Appellate Division properly granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, an undergraduate student, was shot without provocation by a nonstudent while standing outside a fraternity house located in a residential area of defendant’s campus known as the “fraternity quad.” Plaintiff alleged that inadequate security and lighting were a proximate cause of his injuries. Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and by a divided Court the Appellate Division reversed and granted defendant summary judgment.

In opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, plaintiff presented no evidence other than “[m]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations” that the alleged insufficient security and lighting in the fraternity quad were a proximate cause of the shooting (Rodriguez v New York City Hous. Auth., 87 NY2d 887, 888 [1995] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), or that the criminal attack was foreseeable or preventable in the normal course of events (see Maheshwari v City of New York, 2 NY3d 288, 294-295 [decided today]). Accordingly, the Appellate Division properly granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 N.E.2d 1250, 2 N.Y.3d 773, 780 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2 N.Y. 773, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colarossi-v-university-of-rochester-ny-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack